National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2000
« back to 2000 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Graduation assessment may be best academic measure, but some educators, athletes worry about over-reliance
|
STAFF WRITER
For many years now, the NCAA has kept a watchful eye on student-athlete graduation rates. And for every class studied since 1986, the year Proposition 48 became effective, those rates have been higher than those of the overall student body.
That would be good news, right?
So why would a university president during a recent Division I Board of Directors meeting express concern about using graduation rates as a measure of academic success? Why would a Division I conference commissioner anxiously compare graduation rates to basketball's RPI? And why would student-athletes worry aloud to members of the Division I Management Council that the NCAA's emphasis on graduation rates tempts academic counselors to steer athletes toward less challenging curricula in order to keep them eligible?
Why?
Because graduation rates carry a big stick -- a big measuring stick that's being used more and more by the Association, its member institutions and even the federal government to scrutinize the "student" in "student-athlete."
Higher graduation rates are the heart and goal of the Association's initial-eligibility rules. They're a media relations tool when they're good and a PR liability when they're not. And now they're part of a proposed reward-and-penalty system in Division I basketball that ties them to the number of scholarships a team can award from year to year.
Should there be concern?
"There should if we assume it's the only measurement," said Syracuse University Chancellor Kenneth A. Shaw. "Once we make the assumption that graduation rates are the end game here -- and the only end game -- we then become frustrated when we look at how little predictive value any of the initial-eligibility variables have."
So far, no other measuring stick has been as successful as graduation rates have been in providing a foundation for academic policies. Yet, graduation rates have posed a conundrum in many ways for the NCAA. As a goal for initial-eligibility rules, they have an inverse relationship with access to college: Increase rates by tightening standards and you decrease the pool of eligible students. As a nugget for basketball scholarships, they are open for abuse, and as a measure of academic success, they cloud the kinds of choices and freedoms that student-athletes might otherwise have.
"Academic success is based on so much more than graduating," said Kofi Bawuah, a football student-athlete at the University of Virginia and a member of the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. "Your curriculum could define your success. Job placement after college can be considered a success. Going on for a master's degree can define success.
"There are other places we can look to define success, we just have to be charged to look at all the places where we don't initially look."
But those places aren't as tidy as a number. Graduation rates seem to correlate handily to measurement. What they don't always measure, however, is the quality of a student-athlete's education.
Defining education
The NCAA adopted legislation mandating public disclosure of graduation rates at the 1990 Convention in anticipation of the proposed Federal Student Right-To-Know Act. The Association was interested in graduation rates even before that time, particularly in the 1980s when there was widespread concern whether athletes were graduating enough to maintain the college experience as a worthy goal of athletics participation. That groundswell of discontent, both within the NCAA and the federal government, had university presidents and politicians alike seeking a recipe for reform. Tracking graduation was the measuring cup they needed.
Graham B. Spanier, president at Pennsylvania State University and chair of the Division I Board of Directors, said the Association relied on graduation rates because many presidents believed then -- and still do -- that graduation should be the ultimate goal for students attending a university.
"We focused in on graduation rates in the 1980s because many schools fell shamelessly short on any reasonable standard of academic accomplishment for their athletes, and this became an issue of public concern nationally," Spanier said. "And we have continued to focus on graduation rates. While they are not the only standard of academic achievement -- it goes without saying that many students, athletes or not, can benefit from attending college even if they don't graduate -- graduation is a worthy goal and one that we care about."
Student-athletes care about graduation, too. But to many of them, the kind of education they receive while graduating is more important than the graduating itself. They believe as the pressure to graduate student-athletes builds, the tendency for perhaps reducing the quality of the education, or at least the choices the student-athlete has in shaping his or her education, grows.
That point was driven home during the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee's meeting with the Management Council in January. There was a consensus that too many times student-athletes were steered away from a particular academic choice because it was too demanding, too risky, too likely that it would end up in that student-athlete's loss of eligibility and becoming a nongraduate for reporting purposes.
The concern is about whose best interests are being guarded in such cases. Don't coaches and counselors trust the student-athlete's ability to choose a curriculum? Are they concerned about the student-athlete's well-being, or are they thinking about how the eligibility status of that student-athlete impacts their team's chances of winning?
"We should not say that because a student-athlete graduates that he or she is better off simply because he or she has some degree," Bawuah said. "Giving a graduation-rate incentive in my opinion only provides motive for an institution to channel its athletes to less challenging curricula in hopes that they will be more likely to graduate. This undermines the very essence of 'higher' education."
Though there are no empirical data to suggest an epidemic of student-athletes being denied the major they seek, there have been enough occurrences recounted to be troubling to the Division I SAAC. Increased attention on graduation rates merely exacerbates that concern, according to Bola Bamiduro, a women's lacrosse student-athlete from Columbia University and vice-chair of the SAAC.
"So someone graduates," she said. "Have they learned anything? Can they be anything once they graduate? Is their major something that will allow them to get a job? And no matter what their major is, have they actually learned something in that major to allow them to get a job in that field?"
Jeffrey Orleans, executive director of the Ivy Group and a member of the Division I Management Council, acknowledged the tendency to orient academic programs toward graduation rates, but he said that the majority of relationships between student-athletes and their coaches and counselors are based on doing the right things for the right reasons.
"We've all heard stories of athletes being pushed through to be eligible and shielded from the kinds of choices and opportunities that other students have," Orleans said. "But I also believe that the vast majority of athletes in the vast majority of teams at the vast majority of schools in this country have good solid educational experiences and that their coaches and athletics programs want them to have those experiences."
Access or outcome?
As much as graduation rates are used to measure academic success, they are being used more and more as a target for structuring college entrance standards. Ever since Prop 48, when increased attention was given to what it takes to be eligible to participate in college sports, graduation has become the end to the initial-eligibility means. Even now, as Prop 16, Division I's current standard, comes under review, graduation remains the goal for which initial-eligibility rules are structured.
But there is tension between those who believe graduation is the end-all for academic success and those who believe entrance standards are the end-all for academic access. Several initial-eligibility models under review, in addition to Prop 16, show an increase in one or the other -- graduation or access -- but not both.
Research has shown that the different component parts regarding initial-eligibility standards (that is, test score, high-school grade-point average and number of high-school core courses) should be weighted differently depending on the outcome that's being predicted. In other words, a rule that attempts to predict freshman grades might weight high-school grades and test score differently than a model that attempts to predict graduation from college.
But there's an inverse relationship in any set of standards between the academic outcome and the access for individuals to achieve the outcome in the first place. Todd Petr, NCAA director of research, said any attempt to increase outcomes shrinks the candidate pool.
"That tension is going to be there no matter what you choose as your academic outcome, whether it be grades during the first year or matriculation after the first year or graduation," he said. "Whatever outcome you choose, as you try to raise it, especially using initial-eligibility standards, you're going to remove more people from the system."
That doesn't sit well with constituent groups who feel that the current standards may have a disparate impact on them to start with. While raising standards certainly is a high-road approach, it begs the question of whether it's better to restrict the candidate pool in order produce a more prolific graduating class or increase access and risk a decrease in graduation percentage. The former could be open to legal scrutiny -- the test-score component of Prop 16 already has been challenged in the courts -- and the latter could possibly lead to student-athlete graduation rates falling to the same level or below those of the overall student body, an outcome that leaders in college athletics would find undesirable. (It should be noted, however, that every year, more and more prospects are meeting the current standards.)
Bamiduro, however, said her student-athlete peers still believe they can have it both ways. Perhaps with the help of some sort of post-enrollment tutoring or mentoring system, prospects should be trusted to make the most of their education.
"I don't think it should be a matter of an at-beginning or an at-end process," she said. "You do need to have access because there are some people who with the exposure of going to college can flourish and they need to have that opportunity. At the same time, things need to be done to get them to graduate. I think there needs to be something done while they're in school."
Bawuah agreed with his SAAC colleague, urging leaders to challenge what happens to athletes once they're in college rather than challenge their legitimacy for being there in the first place.
"We shouldn't tighten access opportunities," he said. "I also believe that looking solely at bottom-line graduation rates is a gross oversight of the 'real' problem. Maybe the reason why that basketball player isn't graduating isn't because his entrance criterion wasn't strong enough but because he or she has to go through a 40-plus game season and miss too much class time. Maybe it's because this student-athlete knows what he or she is studying is something that really doesn't interest them.
"Don't doubt the ability of the student-athlete to achieve scholastically; doubt the system and demands that are placed upon them."
Rewards and penalties
In no sport is the graduation-rate problem more troublesome than in men's basketball. But a legislative package designed to combat low graduation rates in that sport is set to be reviewed by the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors this April. The package emanating from the Division I Working Group to Study Basketball Issues contains one proposal, in fact, that bases the number of grants-in-aid schools are allowed to provide on their four-year graduation rates. Schools with rates of 75 percent or higher would be allowed one additional scholarship, while schools with rates below 32 percent would have one scholarship taken away. Schools in the middle would be allowed the current 13 grants.
David Knight, faculty athletics representative at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, who chaired the working group subcommittee that developed the proposal, said that while the group recognized the risks in using a financial incentive as a reward for a fundamental goal, it did not see the potential for abuse as a reason to abandon ship.
"Let me just say that I think that the opening to abuse is present in every regulation we have," Knight said. "While there are several aspects of the practical workings of a regulation like that, we discussed it from its academic impact."
Knight also said that though the scholarship proposal has received the lion's share of attention within the package, it's really just one of several designed to improve basketball players' academic standing. The package also includes summer aid for freshmen in order to acclimate incoming students to the college academic environment, and a limit on the number of scholarships schools can grant per year, which would further encourage coaches to award grants to prospects who are more likely to graduate.
"When you look at the entire package -- and it really is best looked at as a package -- those factors that tend to strengthen the likelihood of graduation are built all the way through it," Knight said.
Yet there are concerns about tying graduation rates to a reward-and-penalty system. Student-athletes in particular wonder if the scholarship proposal misses the point.
"It's a step in the right direction to make the coach more accountable," Bamiduro said. "But I don't know if tying graduation rates to scholarships is the way to go because that's a lot of pressure -- if graduating people equates to getting more money, then there's a tendency for people to do whatever they need to do in order to keep that money up."
Shaw, who chaired the working group, said that though you can't guarantee any policy to be abuse-proof, there at least is an emphasis to put players on a track toward graduation that may not have been there before.
"You can look at somebody's program after three or four years of study, and you can see what it leads to and what it doesn't lead to," Shaw said. "If they've had enough courses and they've passed those courses and they're eligible -- but when you analyze it you know they'd have to be here another three years to graduate -- that's the kind of abuse you can probably deal with.
"You can't eliminate all the abuses."
No remedy ready
As contentious as the analysis of graduation rates may become, no one has developed a better measurement for academic success.
Knight said there has been some interest in following the academic outcomes of the transfers and applying them to another graduation rate -- in essence, studying how individuals graduate rather than how institutions graduate individuals.
And the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee has discussed some post-enrollment steps such as strengthening continuing-eligibility standards to either boost graduation rates or at least provide an alternative measuring stick.
But according to Spanier, there's no compelling reason to back off using graduation rates as a foundation for establishing academic policy.
"If there were an alternative indicator of academic achievement over the long run, we would certainly look at it," he said. "But I've never heard a persuasive argument that some proxy for academic achievement such as 'normal progress' or freshman-year achievement is a superior goal for our students and our athletes."
Bamiduro said that regardless of whether graduation rates attract more attention or are de-emphasized, the student-athlete experience must be kept in perspective. And for most student-athletes, that experience is defined by gaining an education -- not just any education, but the education of their choice.
"In the end, when you look at grad rates," said Bamiduro, "that is the best way to determine who is succeeding and who's not.
"It's not the NCAA's responsibility to find out what students do after they graduate. But at the same time, if the NCAA enforces these rules that are pushing students out just to get them graduated, it has to look at whether those students are doing something productive and relevant after they graduate. If that's not happening, then graduation rates shouldn't be what we're focusing on."
Until that is determined, however, the Association's watchful eye will remain focused on pomp and circumstance.
What they're saying
What athletics and student leaders are saying about the NCAA's emphasis on graduation rates as a measure of academic success:
Kofi Bawuah, football student-athlete, University of Virginia
"We are in a setting where high performance is demanded in two areas: academics and athletics. High standards are good, but it is also smart to be practical. If student-athlete graduation rates are the same as the student body, I think we have done a good thing. If they are better, then that's great. But if you stick the needle into the balloon too fast, it pops."
Doug Fullerton, commissioner,
Big Sky Conference
"We set up a system where we pigeon-hole kids into majors we think are appropriate or that we think they can handle along with the athletics, and they're going to come away a student who didn't get the normal student experience."
Kenneth A. Shaw, chancellor, Syracuse University
"I've been wracking my brain for some time as to why the correlations between the various initial-eligibility requirements and graduation are so low. The reason is that most of the studies about whether the criteria are working or not are generally done linking the criteria (in this case, test score, high school rank and number of core courses) to first-year performance. That's an index of motivation, preparation and an institution's commitment to that student. The correlations between the requirements and first-year performance are also much higher; hence, there is a better level of predictiveness."
Jeffrey Orleans, executive director, Ivy Group
"Any time we choose a measure, especially when we attach either a penalty or a number to graduation rates, people have a real incentive to do what's necessary to reach that number or avoid that penalty--that increases the possibility that the student's choice will get lost, whether it's done maliciously or not."
David Knight,
faculty athletics representative,
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
"The presidents over the years have consistently maintained that the academic outcome they're interested in is graduation. That hasn't changed. If the presidents say they're interested in graduation and it's a quantifiable concept, then that's what we're going to do."
Charles Whitcomb,
faculty athletics representative,
San Jose State University
"When it comes to higher graduation rates or higher access, I've always wanted to err on the side of higher access, but it's important to get kids in who have the potential to be successful. That requires institutions and coaches to make those serious types of commitments. I don't know how we change the 'win at all costs' philosophy, but to me, coaches still play a major role in retention and attrition."
Transfers work against schools' graduation achievement goals
Student-athlete graduation rates are compounded by the transfer factor. More and more, particularly in revenue sports, student-athlete mobility is having an impact on schools' perceived academic success.
There always have been plenty of interruptions on the way toward graduation -- personal or economic challenges, having to drop out in order to work, career changes, etc. But the most serious attrition that works against individual schools when it comes to calculating a graduation rate is the transfer student.
Big Ten
Conference Commissioner James E. Delany told Division I members at the 2000 Convention that more than half of the Big Ten prospects
who signed letters of intent from 1990 to 1996 left school before graduating or completing eligibility. A large part of that can be attributed to transfers.
It's not just a student-athlete problem, either. Syracuse University Chancellor Kenneth A. Shaw pointed to statistics that show about half of the student body transfers during the course of their college career. Yet, college programs are routinely criticized for a problem that is perceived to exist only in athletics.
"We end up apologizing for a national trend," Shaw said.
And those transfers, even if they graduate from the school they transfer to, count against the school they left. Todd Petr, NCAA director of research, said that is a federal stipulation, and is the least burdensome method for institutions to track both student-athletes and the student body, which the law requires.
To Shaw, the transfer concerns could be alleviated somewhat if an "academic-standing" index were to be factored into the graduation-rate equation. He would like to see a formula where a transfer wouldn't count against a school if he or she left in good academic standing, which would include having completed enough work at an acceptable level of performance in order to graduate in five years.
Shaw gave as an example a student who leaves after his or her sophomore year and has completed nearly 60 hours of work with a C average or better. "I don't know that we should be mourning that passage," he said.
Petr said a concept such as academic standing could be incorporated into a methodology for calculating graduation rates, but that it wouldn't replace the methodology stipulated by the federal government.
"It wouldn't make the government's standard go away," he said.
"We know that a lot of those transfers are graduating," said David Knight, faculty athletics representative at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, and chair of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet. "We're certain that the current methodology underestimates the amount of graduation. But we will always comply with the Department of Education's requirement for providing graduation rates and using the methodology that they suggest. And as far as I'm aware, that's the only methodology we've ever used."
Knight said the NCAA would have access to databases from the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse and the Academic Performance Census, which is a longitudinal study of students and their academic performance, which might shed a different light on the problem.
"We've always been interested in how institutions graduate their athletes by that one methodology, but if you were to follow the academic outcome of the transfers -- and we have a way to do that -- we would then get a better estimation of what our academic regulations are really achieving," Knight said.
-- Gary T. Brown